Carswell Air Force Base and AFGE Local 1364 (Authority decision, July 31, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses an employee’s application for review of a unit clarification decision. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2), an order involving an appropriate unit determination is excluded from ordinary judicial review.

Plain-English summary

An employee sought review of a Regional Director's decision on a petition to clarify a bargaining unit at Carswell Air Force Base. The Authority found that only a party could request that review. The employee had not filed the unit petition, been named in it, or been allowed to intervene. It dismissed his application for lack of standing, leaving the Regional Director's decision in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 C.F.R. § 2421.11, 5 C.F.R. § 2422.17, 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(2).
• Outcome: Application for review dismissed for lack of standing.
• Key point: An individual employee who was not a party to the unit clarification case could not seek review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v22 p1066 ]

22:1066(104)CU

The decision of the Authority follows:

22 FLRA No. 104

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, SEVENTH
COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP, CARSWELL
AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
Activity/Petitioner

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1364
Labor Organization

Case No. 6-CU-60001

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On June 10, 1986, Mr. Willie L. Coberly, an employee, filed what may be considered to be an application for review pursuant to Section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, seeking to set aside the Regional Director's Decision and Order on Petition for Clarification of Unit in the above-entitled case. For the reasons set forth below, it has been determined that the application for review must be dismissed.

Under Section 2422.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, only a party can file an application for review of a Regional Director's Decision and Order in a representation proceeding. /1/

Section 2421.11 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, in pertinent part, define a party as ". . . (A)ny person: (1) Filing a charge, petition or request; (2) named in a charge, complaint, petition, or request; (3) whose intervention in a proceeding has been permitted or directed by the Authority. . . ."

In this case, the Activity filed the clarification of unit (CU) petition. /2/ Mr. Coberly was not the subject of the petition. He was not the representative of the Union in the proceeding nor was he granted intervention status by the Authority. Therefore, Mr. Coberly is not a party to the case within the meaning of Section 2421.11 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and has no standing to file an application for review under Section 2422.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

Accordingly, as employee, Willie L. Coberly, has no standing to file an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order in the instant case, and apart from other considerations, the application for review is hereby dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1986.

/s/ Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

(1) Section 2422.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides, in pertinent part, "A Regional Director's Decision and Order shall be final: provided however, That a party may file an application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order. . . ." (emphasis added)

(2) Under section 2422.1(d) of the Authority Rules and Regulations, a petition for clarification of unit may be filed only by an activity or agency or by a labor organization which is currently recognized by the activity or agency as exclusive representative.